First post here, glad to see a network with a forum for religion, philosophy, and science. This will include all three.

Jordan Peterson seems to have struck a nerve in the world as he debates secular humanists like Sam Harris. Personally I think Harris along with Dawkins, Dennett, the late Hitchens, etc. are very shallow and arrogant forms of Nietzsche. I bring up Nietzsche since he went to the heart of the situation when famously stating "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? " Of course this quote is constantly taken out of context by everyone but Peterson has revived this line of thinking to show the materialists like Harris that we have stripped away the meaning of life by reducing everything (consciousness is the main topic) to the material world so what will we do now? Now that we are gods how will we create meaning?

I've been studying this topic for a while now and of course it splits off into many directions but it appears that we are about to go head first into a new axial age. Consciousness can no longer be contained by the materialistic framework that has dominated the world since the enlightenment. Any thoughts on this? I am a Christian and I haven't seen any other pathway that will provide meaning in the end of all things.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

Peterson's allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrow-minded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.


I find the Peterson phenomenon quite interesting. Similar to Shapiro. These are guys that have made their name with clips of them "destroying" unprepared and over zealous college students and reporters. In instances where these guys have stepped up intellectually and had discussions with similarly prepared folks, they look much more ordinary, and occasionally silly.

For example, the first talk w Peterson and Harris was a joke for Peterson, IMO. I haven't listened to the second but I hear it was a much more productive conversation. If you look hard enough, there are peers, like above, that will offer you some balance. For example, watch Shapiro talk to a guy like David packman, for example. He's anything but a misguided college student and doesn't let Ben get away w his fast talking decedption. Peterson is similar in that there is a ton of word salad that goes on that sometime doesn't add up to much.

Having said that, I think Peterson is very smart and adds a needed position to the discussion. I just think there needs to be some pause on him being some revolutionary genius.

My last point is on the atheists you mention. I think w anyone, when they "stay in their lane" so to speak, Peterson is quite good. Where he looks bad is when he tries to go into other areas. For example, when Peterson talked w Matt dillahunty, Matt made him look like a fool. Peterson was way out of his league. Harris is guilty of this, at times. I will defend hitchens because I believe he was a vital voice that was needed to cut through BS, and his style certainly turned some off, but he is needed badly today. Hawkins is another example of someone that is brilliant in their field but get exposed a bit when they venture too far.

Peterson and Shapiro are darlings of the right for exposing (and rightly so, IMO) the foolishness of the far left, but I don't think they are the intellectual giants the right wants to make them.

Let me also say, I think it's a mistake to lump dennett in w Hawkins and Harris. They tend to embrace being in the public debate, so to speak. Dennett is much more reserved and much more respected in his field. Dennett is a very serious thinker. You're making a huge mistake if you dismiss dennett.

Macarthur said:

---

Let me also say, I think it's a mistake to lump dennett in w Hawkins and Harris. They tend to embrace being in the public debate, so to speak. Dennett is much more reserved and much more respected in his field. Dennett is a very serious thinker. You're making a huge mistake if you dismiss dennett.

---

I think it's a huge mistake to dismiss any of them because they're all extremely intelligent and they communicate the views of scientific materialism very well.

As for JBP, I find him a lot more interesting and useful than Shapiro because he's filling a gap in public discourse and has a unique voice. Shapiro is just a standard classical liberal who views the world through political-colored glasses.

Here's a good review of Peterson's book by a psychiatrist blogger I really like:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

I like the CS Lewis comparison: Not exactly an original thinker, but can distill and communicate ideas that help people change their lives.

Macarthur said:

---

Let me also say, I think it's a mistake to lump dennett in w Hawkins and Harris. They tend to embrace being in the public debate, so to speak. Dennett is much more reserved and much more respected in his field. Dennett is a very serious thinker. You're making a huge mistake if you dismiss dennett.

---

I don't mean to dismiss any of them. Like everyone else in our modern time we have devolved from the giants so to speak, or I think we are reaching the end of the discussion. When I watched the Matt Dillahunty debate I actually thought the convo didn't go anywhere because Matt wasn't going back far enough in the evolution of consciousness to understand where Peterson was coming from. The worldview of the ancients are largely dismissed from the materialists mainly because we progress with only advancements within the material world and not consciousness. The issue Peterson, and many before him, is that the scientific method has stripped away consciousness. The assumption that the material world exists on its own, but this argument goes back very far. Galileo is a decent spot to go back to when he divided the world between primary and secondary phenomenon, but that is an assumption. I just can't get past consciousness as fundamental since we would know nothing without it.

I'm glad to see we have like minded people on this board. At 247 it was pulling teeth.

Gator03 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Let me also say, I think it's a mistake to lump dennett in w Hawkins and Harris. They tend to embrace being in the public debate, so to speak. Dennett is much more reserved and much more respected in his field. Dennett is a very serious thinker. You're making a huge mistake if you dismiss dennett.

---

I think it's a huge mistake to dismiss any of them because they're all extremely intelligent and they communicate the views of scientific materialism very well.

As for JBP, I find him a lot more interesting and useful than Shapiro because he's filling a gap in public discourse and has a unique voice. Shapiro is just a standard classical liberal who views the world through political-colored glasses.

Here's a good review of Peterson's book by a psychiatrist blogger I really like:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

I like the CS Lewis comparison: Not exactly an original thinker, but can distill and communicate ideas that help people change their lives.

---

This is my general thought on JBP and especially Shapiro.

Their ability to communicate these complex thoughts to the general masses can be equally as important as the thoughts themselves.

If we are looking for a deep Christian thinker, I'd think we'd have to start with William Layne Craig right? He's a better communicator than most too which has really set him up as the standard these days.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Gator03 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Let me also say, I think it's a mistake to lump dennett in w Hawkins and Harris. They tend to embrace being in the public debate, so to speak. Dennett is much more reserved and much more respected in his field. Dennett is a very serious thinker. You're making a huge mistake if you dismiss dennett.

---

I think it's a huge mistake to dismiss any of them because they're all extremely intelligent and they communicate the views of scientific materialism very well.

As for JBP, I find him a lot more interesting and useful than Shapiro because he's filling a gap in public discourse and has a unique voice. Shapiro is just a standard classical liberal who views the world through political-colored glasses.

Here's a good review of Peterson's book by a psychiatrist blogger I really like:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

I like the CS Lewis comparison: Not exactly an original thinker, but can distill and communicate ideas that help people change their lives.

---

This is my general thought on JBP and especially Shapiro.

Their ability to communicate these complex thoughts to the general masses can be equally as important as the thoughts themselves.

If we are looking for a deep Christian thinker, I'd think we'd have to start with William Layne Craig right? He's a better communicator than most too which has really set him up as the standard these days.

---

I don't want this to devolve into a forum 16 but I do not think Shapiro or WLC are serious thinkers. Craig is a good communicator but I find his apologetics very lacking. Shapiro likes to talk really fast but if deconstruct much of what he says, it's really not that insightful. I think Peterson is on a couple levels higher than the other two.

Would you mind giving some examples where you believe WLC is lacking?

GQaggie said:

---

Would you mind giving some examples where you believe WLC is lacking?

---

WLC is great when it comes to logic. There hasn't been anyone that can counter his basic argument of the value of life without God. It just ends in nihilism and atheists don't want to admit that. He certainly lacks what Peterson brings the table and that would be a deep look into consciousness and Peterson's dive into Postmodernism. What Peterson lacks is bridging that concretely to Christian doctrine and that is where I turn to Owen Barfield, CS Lewis, NT Wright, Peter Kreeft, etc...

WLCs argument about value or meaning is fundamentally flawed as it restricts meaning or value to things that must be eternal without a basis to do so. Ironically, among others non other than Peterson has pointed this out to Craig.

Aggrad08 said:

---

WLCs argument about value or meaning is fundamentally flawed as it restricts meaning or value to things that must be eternal without a basis to do so. Ironically, among others non other than Peterson has pointed this out to Craig.

---

Bingo.

And typing on an Ipad sucks....lol I promise I'm not drunk.

Aggrad08 said:

---

WLCs argument about value or meaning is fundamentally flawed as it restricts meaning or value to things that must be eternal without a basis to do so. Ironically, among others non other than Peterson has pointed this out to Craig.

---

What did Peterson say? It wouldn't be surprising since Peterson mainly dwells within the Darwinian landscape. WLC restricts meaning to the eternal since God the Father is at the top of his hierarchy, not a material substance. How can there be any value or meaning if there is no eternal reality? There would be no perspective to judge the past or any perspective at all so everything fades to black. Which is where I assume WLC makes the statement of no ultimate value or purpose.

Wiki rational has a nice long article addressing WLC. You can look that up if you want read what many non-theists believe are his "issues".

Shapiro panders to a more common audience with is show, but if you listen to some of his more philosophical and insightful talks, such as his Sunday chats, or when he speaks with Peterson, I think he really can be a deep thinker at times

Peterson is saving the baby that the intellectuals have been throwing out with the religious bathwater and he is very smart in how he is doing it.

It's funny when I read or listen to honest people who disagree with him and how they will immediately grant his superior intelligence but then critique his argument.

His use of the metaphysical is the only way he can attempt to get across the gravity of what he is trying to preserve in our society.

I no longer follow the Bible in belief, but Peterson has helped to really open my eyes to the impossibility of being where we are in history without it.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Shapiro panders to a more common audience with is show, but if you listen to some of his more philosophical and insightful talks, such as his Sunday chats, or when he speaks with Peterson, I think he really can be a deep thinker at times

Peterson is saving the baby that the intellectuals have been throwing out with the religious bathwater and he is very smart in how he is doing it.

It's funny when I read or listen to honest people who disagree with him and how they will immediately grant his superior intelligence but then critique his argument.

His use of the metaphysical is the only way he can attempt to get across the gravity of what he is trying to preserve in our society.

I no longer follow the Bible in belief, but Peterson has helped to really open my eyes to the impossibility of being where we are in history without it.

---

But I think this is where the problem of those on 'his side' make when they jump to conclusions. I have heard Hitchens and even Harris state that there is very little doubt that religions played a very important role in the formation of early human morality.

That is not really the point of contention. Of course anyone that understands history knows that was the foundation of pretty much every civilization's moral history.

The point of contention is whether or not we, as a society, can pull out that tablecloth on the table of modern civilization without toppling over any of the tableware.

Though I would say that is a poor analogy, being that our religious foundations and archetypes are more of a bottom row of the Jinga tower that is our civilization.

Quote:

---

The point of contention is whether or not we, as a society, can pull out that tablecloth on the table of modern civilization without toppling over any of the tableware.

---

This is basically the question of Nietzsche in the OP.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

That is not really the point of contention. Of course anyone that understands history knows that was the foundation of pretty much every civilization's moral history.

The point of contention is whether or not we, as a society, can pull out that tablecloth on the table of modern civilization without toppling over any of the tableware.

Though I would say that is a poor analogy, being that our religious foundations and archetypes are more of a bottom row of the Jinga tower that is our civilization.

---

I understand your point and it's fair.

Macarthur said:

---

But I think this is where the problem of those on 'his side' make when they jump to conclusions. I have heard Hitchens and even Harris state that there is very little doubt that religions played a very important role in the formation of early human morality.

---

Peterson isn't assuming anything. He's actually pointing out that Harris and his crowd are dangerously assuming that consciousness is simply material and that we can create our own morality (which everyone tries and always ends in bloodshed). This is why he points of the old Hebrew stories of them replacing God at the top of the hierarchy and with whatever idol their heart desires, then they get hammered.

He agrees with Sam on meaning within the Darwinian framework...which is survival. That is important and necessary but not the essence of being. I'll give Harris a little bit of credit since he does talk about consciousness a bit but most materialists have abstracted the first person view so much that they completely oblivious to having experiences. Basically they think they only view the world through an objective scientific lens which is absurd. Harris is oblivious to stories and the way humans orient themselves in the world. Rationality and analytic modes of viewing the world are within the greater domain of the first person conscious experience.

It was painful to watch the Harris and especially Dillahunty debate since neither one came close to grasping this concept. I really funny part of the Harris debate was when Peterson talked about getting at the edge of the bed to pray and asking something and then receiving an answer. Harris said he's done something like it but that's not God. It's like...what? Harris participated and received an answer in whatever form it was but denied God. It's like well at that point Harris is just refusing to name God so just replace it with another name and move on lol.

mesocosm said:

---

Jordan Peterson - The Depak Chopra for white nationalists

---

Well he's a classical liberal so try again...but this time try harder.

Wow, I'm impressed with how out of touch with reality you are. Well done.

Quote:

---

Peterson isn't assuming anything. He's actually pointing out that Harris and his crowd are dangerously assuming that consciousness is simply material and that we can create our own morality (which everyone tries and always ends in bloodshed). This is why he points of the old Hebrew stories of them replacing God at the top of the hierarchy and with whatever idol their heart desires, then they get hammered.

---

Who 'always' tries? And Harris' worldview has caused bloodshed? Really?

Quote:

---

It was painful to watch the Harris and especially Dillahunty debate since neither one came close to grasping this concept.

---

You really think they didn't grasp the concept? Do you think Harris or Dillahunty are not on the level of JP and are not able to understand the concept?

Quote:

---

I really funny part of the Harris debate was when Peterson talked about getting at the edge of the bed to pray and asking something and then receiving an answer. Harris said he's done something like it but that's not God. It's like...what? Harris participated and received an answer in whatever form it was but denied God. It's like well at that point Harris is just refusing to name God so just replace it with another name and move on lol.

---

Harris has been very vocal about meditation and its benefits. Are you not getting that part?

I gotta be honest. This thread has caused me to go back and listen to more JP. Frankly, the more I listen, the more I'm not impressed.

Depends on what you listen to. His debating isn't that great. He loses his temper, he can go off on tangents that aren't as relevant.

However, many of his lectures are pretty amazing. His series on the Old testament, his speeches on how dangerous the left can become without us even realizing they have gone too far, his speeches on communist Russia, ect.

I would say Harris and Dillahunty understand a shallow level version of what Peterson is getting at, but they are unable to see the breadth and width of what he is truly talking about.

I side more with Harris in their debate, but I appreciate much more what Peterson is saying than Harris does. We need thinkers like Peterson. When he talks about things being much more deep and crucial than people realize, I don't think he's really talking about a man in the sky who is watching over us. He is addressing how we evolved as a species and what is hidden deep within our psyche. Harris and the like understand that to a point, but not at the level JP is talking about.

Fair enough, I do think JP is an expert in his field, no doubt. The problem is that (and not just with JP) when these guys get more and more exposure, they then tend to get over exposed into talking about things not in their area.

For example, I thought JP did not have good look on Bill Maher. I also think his debate with Dillahunty did him no favors because he tried to play both sides on the God issue. Dillahunty was having none of that.

The debates he has been in other than the ones with Harris, and even that one to some extent, were not well done because there was a lot of talking past each other, and being on two different wavelengths..

For example, with Matt, Matt was arguing like it was a debate on if God exists or not, while JP was arguing on whether we should ACT as if one exists or not. To JP's point, the answer to that does not rely on a God really existing or not.

JP arguing with empiricists, I do not think is productive.

I see your last point, but I thought Dillahunty answered the question quite well. There are clearly selfish reasons to not kill others, and in turn, is completely rational.

Macarthur said:

---

I see your last point, but I thought Dillahunty answered the question quite well. There are clearly selfish reasons to not kill others, and in turn, is completely rational.

---

To me the point goes beyond that. Yes, it is absolutely possible to reach a good moral foundation on rationality alone. I base my libertarian principles on this and they have nothing to do with a "higher power". It is 100% rational logic.

However, when talking about society and morality that a society is based in, things can get more complicated.

When you move from a few people and their own personal morality to tens of thousands, if not millions of people and a shared morality, rationality can get thrown out the window. How do you stifle that with reason alone?

Macarthur said:

---

Quote:

---

Peterson isn't assuming anything. He's actually pointing out that Harris and his crowd are dangerously assuming that consciousness is simply material and that we can create our own morality (which everyone tries and always ends in bloodshed). This is why he points of the old Hebrew stories of them replacing God at the top of the hierarchy and with whatever idol their heart desires, then they get hammered.

---

Who 'always' tries? And Harris' worldview has caused bloodshed? Really?

Quote:

---

It was painful to watch the Harris and especially Dillahunty debate since neither one came close to grasping this concept.

---

You really think they didn't grasp the concept? Do you think Harris or Dillahunty are not on the level of JP and are not able to understand the concept?

Quote:

---

I really funny part of the Harris debate was when Peterson talked about getting at the edge of the bed to pray and asking something and then receiving an answer. Harris said he's done something like it but that's not God. It's like...what? Harris participated and received an answer in whatever form it was but denied God. It's like well at that point Harris is just refusing to name God so just replace it with another name and move on lol.

---

Harris has been very vocal about meditation and its benefits. Are you not getting that part?

---

As far as "who" always tries that goes to back to my original post of Nietzsche. He was a real prophet in the sense that he was a huge voice of the bloodshed that was going to come in the 20th century. He essentially said that we have given up wisdom and no absolute truth will exist in the mind of man since we have become gods, cue WLC. You won't understand WLC's absolute meaning/truth if you don't understand the idea of God and the line of thinking that goes with it. When we place God at the top of the hierarchy it provides humans with an unattainable goal. This is actually a good thing since you constantly have to strive for the ultimate good but never reach it. Unlike all of communism who literally claim they are a god and have a utopian vision that ends in millions and millions of murders. Placing this in the hands of man will fail every single time. Harris thinks that secular humanism can be the answer to bloodshed...good luck with that is basically JPs response. If any good comes from secular humanism then they are hitching a ride with the giants as JP tried to get across with Dillahunty. Humans are constantly irrational. A rational human doesn't exist. We can use rationality but there's a whole other hemisphere of being a human. People like Dillahunty dismiss this since they actually believe we can view everything in the matter of rationality. I can't go down that hole right now but the lawn mower talk with Dillahunty is a good place to look.

Both Harris and Dillahunty are far from this line of thinking because they are strict materialists. Dillahunty doesn't even deserve a stage but as I said before Harris will at least talk about consciousness and meditation but he connects no meaning to it outside that it can give you a temporary benefit inside this material domain. There's nothing else to it for Harris. This is perfectly summed up in the Vancouver debate where they discuss prayer. JP gives Harris an example where prayer works. JP says you get on the edge of your bed, speak to the void, and wait for an answer. Harris says he agrees and has done this but it doesn't prove a supernatural god. JP relies that he wasn't proving God he was giving an example of where prayer works. He then says "What exactly are you communicating with" to Harris and this is where Harris simply doesn't have the knowledge or wisdom. Harris says we can prove this through psychology the he backtracks and says "We don't know where anything comes from" and JP instantly agrees with him on that.

So they both agree that we don't know where anything comes from. Then the question is where do things come from? What JP is trying to do is what many philosophers did in the past. He's trying to get Harris to realize what is lost when we separate mind/matter. Owen Barfield- "How is it the more able man becomes to manipulate the world to his advantage (scientific reductionism), the less he can perceive any meaning in it?" Why is it that the ancient world was filled with meaning but modern world is dying from the lack of it? Sure life was tough back then and is comfortable now due to our dissecting of the material world and growth of technology but we lack any meaning. "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?" Luke 9:25

JP is giving us a cautionary tale. However we no longer believe in tales. We live in a postmodern society filled with fools like Macbeth.

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Quote:

---

Peterson isn't assuming anything. He's actually pointing out that Harris and his crowd are dangerously assuming that consciousness is simply material and that we can create our own morality (which everyone tries and always ends in bloodshed). This is why he points of the old Hebrew stories of them replacing God at the top of the hierarchy and with whatever idol their heart desires, then they get hammered.

---

Who 'always' tries? And Harris' worldview has caused bloodshed? Really?

Quote:

---

It was painful to watch the Harris and especially Dillahunty debate since neither one came close to grasping this concept.

---

You really think they didn't grasp the concept? Do you think Harris or Dillahunty are not on the level of JP and are not able to understand the concept?

Quote:

---

I really funny part of the Harris debate was when Peterson talked about getting at the edge of the bed to pray and asking something and then receiving an answer. Harris said he's done something like it but that's not God. It's like...what? Harris participated and received an answer in whatever form it was but denied God. It's like well at that point Harris is just refusing to name God so just replace it with another name and move on lol.

---

Harris has been very vocal about meditation and its benefits. Are you not getting that part?

---

As far as "who" always tries that goes to back to my original post of Nietzsche. He was a real prophet in the sense that he was a huge voice of the bloodshed that was going to come in the 20th century. He essentially said that we have given up wisdom and no absolute truth will exist in the mind of man since we have become gods, cue WLC. You won't understand WLC's absolute meaning/truth if you don't understand the idea of God and the line of thinking that goes with it. When we place God at the top of the hierarchy it provides humans with an unattainable goal. This is actually a good thing since you constantly have to strive for the ultimate good but never reach it. Unlike all of communism who literally claim they are a god and have a utopian vision that ends in millions and millions of murders. Placing this in the hands of man will fail every single time. Harris thinks that secular humanism can be the answer to bloodshed...good luck with that is basically JPs response. If any good comes from secular humanism then they are hitching a ride with the giants as JP tried to get across with Dillahunty. Humans are constantly irrational. A rational human doesn't exist. We can use rationality but there's a whole other hemisphere of being a human. People like Dillahunty dismiss this since they actually believe we can view everything in the matter of rationality. I can't go down that hole right now but the lawn mower talk with Dillahunty is a good place to look.

Both Harris and Dillahunty are far from this line of thinking because they are strict materialists. Dillahunty doesn't even deserve a stage but as I said before Harris will at least talk about consciousness and meditation but he connects no meaning to it outside that it can give you a temporary benefit inside this material domain. There's nothing else to it for Harris. This is perfectly summed up in the Vancouver debate where they discuss prayer. JP gives Harris an example where prayer works. JP says you get on the edge of your bed, speak to the void, and wait for an answer. Harris says he agrees and has done this but it doesn't prove a supernatural god. JP relies that he wasn't proving God he was giving an example of where prayer works. He then says "What exactly are you communicating with" to Harris and this is where Harris simply doesn't have the knowledge or wisdom. Harris says we can prove this through psychology the he backtracks and says "We don't know where anything comes from" and JP instantly agrees with him on that.

So they both agree that we don't know where anything comes from. Then the question is where do things come from? What JP is trying to do is what many philosophers did in the past. He's trying to get Harris to realize what is lost when we separate mind/matter. Owen Barfield- "How is it the more able man becomes to manipulate the world to his advantage (scientific reductionism), the less he can perceive any meaning in it?" Why is it that the ancient world was filled with meaning but modern world is dying from the lack of it? Sure life was tough back then and is comfortable now due to our dissecting of the material world and growth of technology but we lack any meaning. "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?" Luke 9:25

---

Yes, Nietzche was prophetic, but the mistake you make is equating what has happened with communist countries and totalitarian regimes to secular humanism. Those situations followed much more closely the model of religion. Frankly, this old tired tripe of atheism has led to more deaths is incredibly lazy and shows little motivation to seriously talk about atheism or secular humanism.

https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

As for the bolded, if you think Dillahunty has no place on the stage with JP, then there's very little to discuss.

There is a strong tendency on the right to latch onto the next great right leaning intellectual. It's become pretty clear that Shapiro has been exposed. JP is now the hot guy. I suspect JP will have more staying power because he is a legit thinker in his area of expertise, but in their desire to destroy all things 'libtard', the right is making him out to be something he is not. If he stays in his lane, he is formidable and has a lot to add to the national discussion, but when he gets into some of these other areas, the Depak comparison does hold some water.

Quote:

---

It's become pretty clear that Shapiro has been exposed.

---

It's like you want to not be taken seriously. What point is it with this kind of BS?

Right back at you. You think Shapiro is a serious intellectual?